Within the media industry there are several governmental regulatory bodies at work, they regulate key issues in the industry, protecting consumer choice and unethical practises. Ofcom are considered a key regulatory body of the creative media sector, they regulate plurality in cross media ownership, ensuring the public have access to a wide range of news resources and other information involving a differing of ideologies. Ofcom addressed a letter to the secretary of state in 2009, calling for further legislation on stakeholders wishing to purchase Channel 3 property. The 2003 legislation introduced further restrictions on the Broadcasting Act of 1990. However consequences of the Broadcasting Act were mostly for the greater good, with the act came the introduction of the ITC (independent television comission) which aided the television industry in the UK to be more independent. As a result more independent channels were launched and co-production deals were struck with already established British broadcasters. Perhaps most impressive of all changes due to this act were the improvements made to employment prospects in the industry. Broadcasters were more likely to employ people on a freelance or fixed term contract basis.
The PCC (Press Complaints Commission) regulate the legal and ethical conduct of the press, it was created independently by the publishing industry itself in 1991. This was provoked due to claims that some members of the press were breaking the code of practise and even the law by invading people's privacy. The bodies role is to uphold the 1993 code of practise. Libel law was already statutory to members of the press, but the PCC do regulate anyone's right to reply, this is not legally enforceable, but if proven untrue, could result in a trial where damages would be paid to the victim. The BBC's editorial guidelines state the following
"When our output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or institution the presumption is that those criticised should be given a "right of reply", that is, given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.". In Brazil their constitution guarantees the right to reply. Other issues concerning the PCC are chequebook journalism cases of those who are bribed to sell information for print.
The ASA stipulate that all advertising should be honest, legal, truthful and of taste. Ofcom and the BBFC all protect children from violent and sexualised imagery that are featured in television, radio and video games the ASA formed an organisation with other regulators named ParentPort. This website regularly updates parents on how they can take action and also features statistics, tips on how they can prevent their children accessing such material and internet links to other regulators, protecting those under the of 18.
Censorship
Censorship in the media is something that is increasingly being influenced by the agenda of media tycoons and those in government. Calls for censorship are a regular occurrence in the public sphere. This is often more than not because the material is of an offensive nature. Some legislative acts in the United Kingdom that define the breaches of law would be The Obscene Publications Act of 1964, The Broadcasting Act of 1990, The Official Secrets Act of 1989 the Racial and Religious Hatred act of 2006, also any material that insights terrorism will be censored, however this can sometimes conflict with The Human Rights act of 1998. All of these acts in particular explain the breaches of such laws and that in a court of law any defendant could receive serious criminal convictions. These acts define the moral and ethical lines, and in the event these lines are crossed it will become a legal matter. But who does censorship benefit? the board of classification? government? parents? censorship is often encouraged with propaganda, and right-wing politics that exist in new media. Blasphemy used to contain an unwritten 'blasphemous libel' law but after the common law case of 'White House v Lemon' after an apparent blasphemous poem made it into an issue of Gay News after the trial in 1977 Lord Scarman concluded with the following statement: "Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language." this sent a clear message that blasphemy laws were something of the past, especially regarding material that retains artistic merit or for the benefit of entertainment. In entertainment films like 'Life of Brian' was faced with social uproar by religious believers and still is not just in the UK but overseas to. In 1980, 68 of the councils that scrutinized the film, upheld the regulator British Board of Film Censors AA certificate, 28 enforced a local X rating and 11 banned it outright.
More recently the play 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' of 2005 written by comedian Stewart Lee and musician/comedian Richard Thomas was subject to controversy due to elements of blasphemy. The programme is a satirical musical and a pastiche on 21st century popular culture and religion in the 21st century judeo-christian world. The musical offended followers of the Christian Voice who threatened to picket the performances which in turn lead to Arts Council England pulling out on their bid for funding. The programme did gain some support from the BBC in 2006 the same year it toured, which resulted in members of Christian Voice picketing the BBC's facilities, this further led to the Christian Institute attempting to prosecute the BBC. Protests continued at venues to varied degrees throughout its 2006 UK tour. The programme is a satirical musical and a pastiche on 21st century popular culture. Its use of profanity was incorrectly reported in the press. Claims made by both The Daily Mail and The Sun stated the show used "3,168 mentions of the word f*ck and 297 of the word c*nt". In an interview with The Observer Stewart Lee revealed there are in fact 174 swear words in all.
BBC Three animated black comedy 'Monkey Dust' set in an exaggerated dystopian Great Britain aired from 2003 until 2005. The show used animation and satirical humour in a sketch show format. The programme received some considerable praise for its originality and critique and now receives a modest cult following on the internet. but after the London atrocities of July 7th 2005, the show stopped appearing on the BBC Three schedule. This is speculated because of the content and humour that appears in Monkey Dust. In particular characters such the Peadofinder General (a kind of grim reaper-esque executioner of pedophiles) Omar, Abdul and Shafiq who are incompetent suicide bombers and Abu the illegal immigrant.These characters may not have been ethically viable to air during that time, but eight years on and there is no sign of Monkey Dust appearing on BBC Three's schedule. Of course this is all speculation a spokeswoman for comedy at the BBC commented on the state of Monkey Dust, since its exemption explaining "it was absolutely not the content of the programme that resulted it in being shelved, it went through a typical broadcast pattern, first airing on BBC Three, then BBC2 then it was pulled from programming". Furthermore there were all in all three series, only the first series was released on DVD the second and third containing material featuring Omar, Abdul, Shafiq and Abu the illegal immigrant. The official explanation to why the remaining two series never made it to DVD was due to the untimely death of Monkey Dust creator Harry Thompson. I would speculate that it may be down to marketing with BBC Three executives. Although at the time it gained a good reception, it may not have been credible to some advertising and marketing officials, there may be a fear that members of the public would be offended with Monkey Dust's dark but hilarious humour.
Taste and Decency
In the press taste and decency must be to a professional standard, it is important especially as a journalist, to consider the sensitive nature of a subject or story. If the story is obscuring or demonizing in a condemning fashion, a person or subject, then it will not correspond with what serves the public interest.
Most recently a high court found Guardian journalist Sally Bercow guilty of breaching
libel law, after she published a tweet on her
twitter account that claimed Conservative MP Lord McAlpine was involved in organised pedophilic activity during the 1980s. BBC's Newsnight special that aired on November 2nd 2012, wrongly linked an anonymous Thatcher-era politician to be involved in a child abuse cover up, regarding a Wrexham care home in Wales during the 1970s and the 1980s. This was an issue of current affairs and many of Bercow's peers and twitter followers took an interest in such issues. In the midst of all the media attention, just days after the botched newsnight special aired, Sally Bercow tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*".
Lord McAlpine was angered by the claims and lashed out at BBC executives for green lighting the special, which in turn controversy followed, his reputation and livelyhood was troubled by such serious accusations. The BBC apologised to McAlpine reservedly and settled a defamation claim of £185,000 to McAlpine personally. Sally Bercow approached McAlpine twice in January of 2013 with offers for compensation., McAlpine rejected both offers, instead favouring formal justice, the undisclosed damages will have to be paid by Bercow directly to McAlpine, it is stipulated this is more than what she bargained for. Judge Justice Tugendhat dismissed Mrs Bercow's argument that the question she had posed was entirely neutral. Her inclusion of the words "innocent face" revealed that the question was "ironical" the judge ruled.
Justice Tugendhat denounced Bercow's claim that the tweet was entirely neutral and was meant to be a conservational statement. Bercow stated "I did not tweet this with malice, and I did not intend to libel Lord McAlpine. I was being conversational and mischievous, as was so often my style on Twitter." She commented further "I very much regret my tweet, and I promptly apologised publicly and privately to Lord McAlpine for the distress I caused him. I also made two offers of compensation". Lord McAlpine's attorney further stated "With knowledge of the judgment, I am pleased to be able to say that Mrs Bercow has finally seen sense and has accepted an offer of settlement, which Lord McAlpine made back in January".
On the 24th of May 2013, Sally Bercow was found guilty of libelous accusations of child abuse involving Lord McAlpine. After the ruling, Sally Bercow stated to the press "Lord McAlpine issued proceedings and the last few months have been a nightmare. I am sure he has found it as stressful as I have. Litigation is not a pleasant experience for anyone." Mrs Bercow said she had learned her lesson "the hard way". This has raised awareness for everyone who use social networking websites like Twitter, it was obvious that such an accusation could result in legal action, however this has became the most recent and relevant example of the growing concern to be more vigilant when sharing and publishing on personal social networking web pages.
Taste and decency may also refer to allusions of sexual nature, sexualised nudity, illegal drug use and alcohol abuse. In the press industry, taste and decency is a necessity for journalism, it also follows a visual stigma, some press publications have been known to print unsettling material referring to war, images containing people on fire, limbless, battered or dead, this will also relate to televised news, for example a broadcaster will forewarn their audience with a statement "viewers may find this footage disturbing". Professionals often choose to self-censor their material in post-production, this is a safeguard that is growing in popularity and is being applied to journalists, news anchors, producers, directors and musicians.
This is a process in which they take into account the legal and ethical constraints that apply, they will also take into account any form of misconduct that could threaten or weaken their social capital. Motives for this would be to satisfy shareholders and/or advertisers, and to avoid sanction or punishment from government bodies or regulators that would otherwise threaten the longevity of a career in that particular part of the industry. Many political and social commentators have shared their concerns on the growing power harnessed by media moguls and multi-national conglomerates. Noam Chomsky I thought digressed into this topic accurately.
"The major media particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow-are corporations “selling” privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well" - Noam Chomsky on media conglomerates.
Intrusion
The regulatory body PCC (press complaints commission) are an independent self-regulator, over the last four years controversy has surrounded the department, and people have questioned the authenticity of their role as a regulator. First their was the News of The World phone hacking scandal, which after a long trial featuring high profile witnesses who testified against the ethics of the press, Lord Justice Leveson concluded in his report that they introduce a new independent regulator, that would be less concentrated and completely independent. In recent news, the controversial far right paper The Daily Mail, had printed a story on a transgender school teacher Lucy Meadows, after months of harrasment and invasion of her privacy from the press, resulted in her ultimately taking her own life. Lucy Meadows previously known as Nathan Upton taught at Mary Magdalen's Primary School in Accrington, Lancashire. The story arrupted into national news when the press learnt parents were upset and confused when Meadows' transition was announced in a school newsletter notifying parents and guardians of staff changes, it read: "Mr Upton has recently made a significant change in his life and will be transitioning to live as a woman. After the Christmas break, she will return to work as Miss Meadows." The story was covered in a mostly negative fashion by various publications but perhaps the most damning and convicting was an article that appeared in Richard Littlejohn's article for The Daily Mail, the piece headline' was "He's not only in the wrong body… he's in the wrong job" the polemicist asked whether anyone had thought of "the devastating effect" on the pupils of Meadows' change in gender.
As the PCC's rules dictate, the commission were able to act when Meadows herself complained on the 4th of January 2013 a PCC complaints officer sent an email to all UK media addressing her concerns to them. Right through the christmas period into the new year, she was chastized and harrased by the press she had made several statements one made just before christmas read ""I am grateful to governors and colleagues at St Mary Magdalen's for their support. I'd now ask for my privacy to be respected so that I can continue with my job, which I'm committed to and which I enjoy very much." On the 19th of March 2013 Lucy Meadows was found dead in her Accrington home, from carbon monoxide poisoning. This had caused outrage and several responses to the case, have ousted The Daily Mail, and their infamous approach to covering personal, and confidential stories that do not serve in the public interest. In the inquest to her death Coroner Michael Singleton
said he planned to write to Conservative MP Maria Miller, Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport, to warn that "unless action is taken it could
leave to further fatality". Mr Singleton further stated: "I will be writing to the government to consider now implementing in
full the recommendations of the Leveson Report in order to seek to ensure that
other people in the same position as Lucy Meadows are not faced with the same
ill-informed bigotry as seems to be displayed in the case of Lucy." When addressing the media at the conclusion of the inquest he said: "And to you,
the press, I say shame - shame on all of you."
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information act of 2000 was a bill that was passed in parliament in order to "create a public right of access to information, held by public authorities." The act dictates that the public have a right of access to current and historic information the government had previously held. The act was described at the time as "the act that is almost too good to be true." the white paper was originally named "Your right to know" written by Dr David Clark created in 1998. This was a commitment contained in the Labour Party manifesto running up to the 1997 general election, the act was officially implemented in 2000, previously to this there had been no right to access information in the UK, merely a limited voluntary framework for sharing information. There are absoloute exemptions to be made regarding the act for example information contained in court records, where disclosure of information would infringe parliamentary priviledge and information provided in confidence.
In America their level of information made accessible to the public is heavily regulated, it has recently been reported that the US Federal Government have been keeping highly personal data stored on a huge database, containing personal information from the public's personal social networking accounts, mobile phone records, video call records, file saves companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook have denied giving the US and UK governments access to their servers. Obama and his administration insist that this will help them counteract extremism and the war on terror. It is a very high-brow topic our most basic of rights, our right to privacy and personal data is being monitored and fed to a federal database, these are alarming facts to recognise, some of today's biggest firms and companies are hardly regulated and are even given tax breaks in the UK and the United States of America. As long as they are holding all the aces it seems that there is no indication to how integrated these companies are with their shareholders and business associates, the financial sector and secret services are working on a whole other plain.
The leaderless "Hacktivist" group Anonymous who have been active since 2003, strongly oppose internet censorship, concentrated media ownership, homophobia, US government, Israel, Syria and secret societies Scientology in particular. They are the subject of scaremongering in numerous countries primarily America and the United Kingdom. Their infamous viral fame over the past two years have increased, the mass media have represented them as "terrorists" in particular Murdoch's network Fox brandished them as "domestic terrorists" and threats to "bomb stadiums". It is clear that new media are pushing a propagandist agenda against the group. The group work as a global brain, a statement by Trent Peacock 'the face' of Anonymous stated the following; "We [Anonymous] just happen to be a group of people on the internet who need—just kind of an outlet to do as we wish, that we wouldn't be able to do in regular society. ...That's more or less the point of it. Do as you wish. ... There's a common phrase: 'we are doing it for the lulz'". This antagonistic approach is not the most logical of options and would hardly prove to inspire change. Although I oppose censorship, I believe this is ethically unjust and ultimately benefits no one, resulting in a cover-story to boost the egos of these "hacktivists". Although they raise a many valid points, its not something that can be open for debate in such a medium. It is a movement that has more in common with sci-fi fantasy and technology itself rather than a genuine shared philosophy.
Media Ownership and its Key Issues...
The issues that exist today with media ownership are caused by the mass privatisation and deregulation of the market, under Margaret Thatcher Conservative Prime Minister of the 1980s. She claimed "the freer the market, the freer the people" but its not hard to work out who's benefiting, the financial sector, time and time again, not the people. During the 1980s governments in the western world were turning a blind eye to a set of mergers and takeovers. In a globalized society, control is integral to its
Growing concerns in media ownership is increasingly apparent in recent years, mass media is becoming more and more concentrated by less and less transnational multimedia conglomerates. A product of globalization, This is a growing concern due to the decreasing involvement the public sphere have within the industry. Some social commentators and academics both liberalist and Marxist have expressed their concerns that increased concentration would only call for a democratic debate on the issues regarding closely-knit and controlled global capitalism. Convergence of media ownership doesn't necessarily mean consumers have better consumer choice, after all these conglomerates are more powerful than some of the countries they exploit both economically and politically. This is a media oligopoly, an oligopoly is where few media firms control a market, large (usually global) scale media companies then buy out the smaller media firms in the market in turn making them more powerful. This is a key contributor to eliminating their competitors they do this by buying out or forcing them out due to a lack of finances for production values, this is all capable because of deregulation from government. Media oligopolies continue to be ultra-powerful and their priorities correspond with the interests of their sponsors, shareholders and government. Those who oppose deregulation say it is rapidly reducing diversity in approach to how information is fed to us, often pushing a bias agender. Furthermore they argue with the growth of concentrated media comes more legally enforced thought censorship, for example some of these conglomerates have substantial control over internet usage, giving them the option to demonstrate biased media from their standpoint. They can also restrict conflicting information that is politically and socially opposing.
The rise of capitalism and the endless will to promote capitalism through advertising, sponsorship, and product placement is proof of the redefinition of the audience as consumers rather than citizens. The audience is constantly bombarded with bias suggestion, favouring a middle class lifestyle or stereotype, or gaining credibility or instant attraction to the opposite sex by purchasing a product. In both America and Great Britain it is often the upper working working class and lower middle class who are misrepresented and sometimes disregarded by the media. Integration and control over goods, services and labour is progressively being governed by media conglomerates, this limits our consumer choice. It is questionable that these transnational media conglomerates are democratic at all and with advancement in technology and the personal information institutions can access on an individual are worrying to say the least. It appears our basic freedoms are being infringed on. Decades ago many of the 'press barons' worked in the interests of the capitalist class. But now the majority of privately owned media companies are now controlled by the six big multimedia conglomerates. These media giants have huge economic and political power, they generate massive revenues which is shared out to their primary owner and shareholders. While no company is safe from collapse the fact is more media production and cultural distribution are being controlled by a small number of privately owned companies, meaning fewer players and more money circulating through less hands. Their ideology is vested in two things, surplus revenue and upholding the values and beliefs of capitalism.
Key factors that continue to boost media imperialism and cultural homogenization are:
- The emergence and merging of fewer global media conglomerates.
- An increasingly deregulated environment in which these organizations operate.
- An uneven flow of information and communication from the public to their products distributed over the global system and the different levels of access that global citizens have to global networks of communications.
- The promotion of consumerism, which is therefore a bias counterpart to the capitalist agenda.
- The fact that these media conglomerates own control and have substantial interests in both media and non-media companies.
- The shrinkage of mass media's public sphere role due largely to concentration and conglomeration.
It is important that we can differentiate from state-owned media to community (not-for-profit) media and privately owned media that doesn't serve in the best interests of their advertisers, shareholders and C.E.O.s Community based media is budgeted modestly, and aim to serve the needs of the community and its inhabitants. For example the town University and its students, or a disparate group of people with niche interests. The public media spectrum will focus on impartial news and free, innovative media sharing. Private owned media will focus on synergy and other forms of vertical and horizontal integration, in order to generate huge turnovers so both the owner and the shareholder can maximise their profit and control. This increasingly limits our consumer choice in all aspects of the media i.e. television, radio, telecommunications and publications industry. However with with the internet and other technology we have been able to express whatever we like to whoever we like in the world. We can share many different types of online media, music, art, animation and film, so long as its legally acquired and shared. The web also acts as forum to comment on anything we like, voicing our individual opinions on politics, war, media, economics, culture and social and geopolitical issues.
Consumer Choice Ltd.
The few and big media monopolies' stronghold over what we choose is becoming stronger, minimising opportunities for other sources to dispatch information to us. As the number of broadcasters and record companies multiply it may appear as if consumer choice is increasing when in fact it is reducing, as media monopolies takeover semi-successful independents, and exploit its previous innovations under a new, bigger budget guise. This is very concerning in all aspects of the media, when competitors are wiped out or taken over, our consumer choice is further limited, we have to look to independent and more impartial sources to source more credible information. In the publishing industry popular newspapers typically cover celebrity gossip, sexualised images of women and possibly libel tabloid rumours. This is how they continue to "dumb down" their audience with rehashed programming, celebrating mediocrity and regressive cultural ideals and push bias political agendas. This is because their company directors, editors and shareholders have generalised the readers, and this is how the audience is stereotyped. Readers have to be identified through socio-economic profiling from any offset, market research is imperative but limiting choice, limits happiness. It is important to consider the multi-cultural class and further still identify sub-cultures, in a time where convergence is everywhere, we are constantly discovering new ways of communicating with each other more choice creates more opportunity. Global media producers show no signs of slowing down as they continue to feed into social stereotypes which are proving to alienate the general public, especially those who fall into the NRS social grades C1 (lower middle class) and C2(skilled working class). This has acted as a catalyst for the educated but ill informed and in turn people from ages 18-36 are finding new ways to avoid bias and outdated information. People are looking to the internet, independent newspaper subscriptions, publishers, social networks, online blogs and independent publications some that are largely described as "niche" music and culture magazines.
Consumer choice in the United Kingdom is protected under a series of legal mandates which are; the Consumer Credit Act of 1974, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. These acts were introduced to enforce and bar any individual or organisation from exploiting consumers for their own financial gain. In the UK Ofcom continue to regulate these errors seriously and effectively.
